Here's A Bomb

[Lilllabettt]

Enjoy. An unusually coherent article on Catholic issues (whether or not you agree with his ideas) from the New York Times. Appreciate your thoughts.
 
The Pope and the Precipice

 

 

Francis is charismatic, popular, widely beloved. He has, until this point, faced strong criticism only from the church’s traditionalist fringe, and managed to unite most Catholics in admiration for his ministry. There are ways that he can shape the church without calling doctrine into question, and avenues he can explore (annulment reform, in particular) that would bring more people back to the sacraments without a crisis. He can be, as he clearly wishes to be, a progressive pope, a pope of social justice — and he does not have to break the church to do it.

 

But if he seems to be choosing the more dangerous path — if he moves to reassign potential critics in the hierarchy, if he seems to be stacking the next synod’s ranks with supporters of a sweeping change — then conservative Catholics will need a cleareyed understanding of the situation.

 

They can certainly persist in the belief that God protects the church from self-contradiction. But they might want to consider the possibility that they have a role to play, and that this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resist him.

[blazeingstar]

I think that it's a bit too much on the "conservitives you be going down"    Rather I think that Francis is trying to rid the church of verbal abusers (quite frankly like Burke) who use the Bible and Chatechism as their own personal bludgeoning bar.

[Lilllabettt]

I know the gay stuff is top of mind around here but the article is discussing communion for the divorced and remarried. Denunciation of which I think is a lot less open to accusations of "verbal abuse" because in the end these are free choices made by adults.

 

I am interested in the idea that defenders of the traditional teaching have a "role" in saving the Pope from error. Just as a general principle, I haven't thought of this before. My perspective has always been that it is unproductive to resist Peter to his face. But given this situation and the fact that a lot of people are not "falling in line" with what the Pope seems to want ... maybe it would be productive. 

 

 

[Cherie]

I am interested in the idea that defenders of the traditional teaching have a "role" in saving the Pope from error. Just as a general principle, I haven't thought of this before. My perspective has always been that it is unproductive to resist Peter to his face. But given this situation and the fact that a lot of people are not "falling in line" with what the Pope seems to want ... maybe it would be productive.

I agree; I hadn't really pondered this aspect all that much. Thanks for posting the quote!

[Credo in Deum]

I know the gay stuff is top of mind around here but the article is discussing communion for the divorced and remarried. Denunciation of which I think is a lot less open to accusations of "verbal abuse" because in the end these are free choices made by adults.

 

I am interested in the idea that defenders of the traditional teaching have a "role" in saving the Pope from error. Just as a general principle, I haven't thought of this before. My perspective has always been that it is unproductive to resist Peter to his face. But given this situation and the fact that a lot of people are not "falling in line" with what the Pope seems to want ... maybe it would be productive. 

 

We (the laity) have a huge role to play, and one which Fulton Sheen said would be what saves the Church. 

 

[blazeingstar]

I know the gay stuff is top of mind around here but the article is discussing communion for the divorced and remarried. Denunciation of which I think is a lot less open to accusations of "verbal abuse" because in the end these are free choices made by adults.

 

I am interested in the idea that defenders of the traditional teaching have a "role" in saving the Pope from error. Just as a general principle, I haven't thought of this before. My perspective has always been that it is unproductive to resist Peter to his face. But given this situation and the fact that a lot of people are not "falling in line" with what the Pope seems to want ... maybe it would be productive. 

 

Well, I think that regardless of free choices made by adults, many times their free choice was limited...anyway....

 

There is a right and a wrong way to go about it.  I do think that the laity and the clergy have a role to play in helping the Pope navigate these issues.  In that respect I think it's where they say, "you know what, it hurts to say XYZ and it only gives some light on the truth".

 

I think among conservative circles (and even look on CAF) there are still far, far too many Catholics who believe that they must stay in a bad marriage with an abusive spouse, or that children must communicate with abusive parents, or that people must go on service trips, etc.  None of that is true.  Separation is recognized by the church (just not dating others), children are called to protect their bodies and minds (just do it respectfully) and God calls people to things other than service trips.

[Amppax]

His coherence probably stems from the fact that he's a (mostly) faithful Catholic. See here.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Amppax

[Slappo]

I think among conservative circles (and even look on CAF) there are still far, far too many Catholics who believe that they must stay in a bad marriage with an abusive spouse, or that children must communicate with abusive parents, or that people must go on service trips, etc.  None of that is true.  Separation is recognized by the church (just not dating others), children are called to protect their bodies and minds (just do it respectfully) and God calls people to things other than service trips.

Sure it's perfectly alright to leave a bad marriage where your family is in danger, but that doesn't mean automatic grounds for an annulment and you can go get remarried b/c you are now divorced.

 

That's the problem.

[Lilllabettt]

Well, I think that regardless of free choices made by adults, many times their free choice was limited...anyway....

 

There is a right and a wrong way to go about it.  I do think that the laity and the clergy have a role to play in helping the Pope navigate these issues.  In that respect I think it's where they say, "you know what, it hurts to say XYZ and it only gives some light on the truth".

 

I think among conservative circles (and even look on CAF) there are still far, far too many Catholics who believe that they must stay in a bad marriage with an abusive spouse, or that children must communicate with abusive parents, or that people must go on service trips, etc.  None of that is true.  Separation is recognized by the church (just not dating others), children are called to protect their bodies and minds (just do it respectfully) and God calls people to things other than service trips.

 

 

Well, marriage has to be a free choice. If its not, then its not a valid marriage to begin with.

Civil divorce does not present an obstacle to Communion, and I'm not sure why people don't understand that. It is acceptable to divorce a spouse who is physically abusive, or a criminal or a philanderer or an addict or a serious threat to psychological well being or whatever.

Divorce is not the problem, remarriage is.

imo,  A LOT of observant Catholics understand that teaching perfectly well.

But they think living without remarriage (i.e. the possibility of permanent celibacy if an annulment turns out to be denied) is unthinkable even compared to whatever miserable situation they are currently living with. So they convince themselves and other people that the Church is the one demanding they stay married.

Nope.

 

I don't know what you're referring to about service trips, that's kind of a bizarre mention.

[Lilllabettt]

His coherence probably stems from the fact that he's a (mostly) faithful Catholic. See here.

 

 

This from that article resonates with me as deeply sad and real:

 

 

 

 But my own view, that doctrine is actually at stake here, is not some convenient notion ginned up to make life difficult for a progressive pope: It’s the historic consensus of the church (which is why the rules are written as they are), reaffirmed consistently during the last two pontificates, upheld by the existing Congregration for the Doctrine of the Faith, and defended by a wide array of churchmen during the current controversy. They/we all may be wrong, but if continuity and consistency matters in the church then the burden of proof is on the advocates of the proposed change, and they haven’t met it nor in many cases even really tried.  So if the change being debated were to happen, if the pope were to approve and promulgate it, that would seem like a Big Deal, with big repercussions for how people – myself, and others – understand their relationship to the Catholic faith.  [...]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 So my dominant emotion isn’t anger right now: It’s a mix of dismay and determination, anxiety and hope, cycling back and forth depending on events. And if the change being bruited were to happen I’m quite sure that my main emotions would be rue and regret – rue that I had somewhat misjudged the church I joined eighteen years ago this spring, and regret that an institution that I believe to be divinely established notwithstanding all its human sins turned out to have a little less of the divine about it than I thought                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Edited October 29, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[blazeingstar]

Sure it's perfectly alright to leave a bad marriage where your family is in danger, but that doesn't mean automatic grounds for an annulment and you can go get remarried b/c you are now divorced.

 

That's the problem.

 

Umm no.  I'm talking about what IS perfectly alright but in many situations people are told that it's not ok.  There is still a frighteningly huge consortium of people who believe anything short of manslaughter means you should stay.  I never said anything about automatically getting remarried, just that the doctrine dosn't always match with attitudes.

[blazeingstar]

Well, marriage has to be a free choice. If its not, then its not a valid marriage to begin with.

Civil divorce does not present an obstacle to Communion, and I'm not sure why people don't understand that. It is acceptable to divorce a spouse who is physically abusive, or a criminal or a philanderer or an addict or a serious threat to psychological well being or whatever.

Divorce is not the problem, remarriage is.

imo,  A LOT of observant Catholics understand that teaching perfectly well.

But they think living without remarriage (i.e. the possibility of permanent celibacy if an annulment turns out to be denied) is unthinkable even compared to whatever miserable situation they are currently living with. So they convince themselves and other people that the Church is the one demanding they stay married.

Nope.

 

I don't know what you're referring to about service trips, that's kind of a bizarre mention.

 

There are some who know the rules and want them to change because it's inconvenient and there are some who don't know the rules and enforce them on others.

 

The service trips things depends on your parish/age.  I find that this is more campus/young communities, but there defiantly the pressure that one MUST go out on a mission.

[Lilllabettt]

There are some who know the rules and want them to change because it's inconvenient and there are some who don't know the rules and enforce them on others.

 

The service trips things depends on your parish/age.  I find that this is more campus/young communities, but there defiantly the pressure that one MUST go out on a mission.

 

 

So are you advocating for a teaching change or better catechesis about the teaching or what.

 

I have 100% no idea what youth mission trips have to do with the proposed change for reception of communion for civilly remarried people.

[truthfinder]

But they think living without remarriage (i.e. the possibility of permanent celibacy if an annulment turns out to be denied) is unthinkable even compared to whatever miserable situation they are currently living with.

Unfortunately, this same sentiment gets a lot of people into bad relationships to begin with.

[blazeingstar]

So are you advocating for a teaching change or better catechesis about the teaching or what.

 

I have 100% no idea what youth mission trips have to do with the proposed change for reception of communion for civilly remarried people.

 

A teaching change where the message remains the same but the delivery is not so block headed.  My point about the service trips (not just for youth, though frequently in those circles) is that many times people get wrapped up in things for the right reasons and feel they are required for salvation, but are not.